About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
MSNBC 12
MSNBCW 5
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
fitsity still. there's no legislative language. it looks like what could be a pretty big tax increase. the spending cuts i think are highly uncertain. it instructs the various committees of the senate and the house to come up with these spending cuts. we have no assurance that they will do that. we have no idea how they'll do that. then we asked the senate to vote on that. all of which suggests to me there are a number of ways in which this could fall apart. i give these guys all the credit in the world for really struggling and trying to make some progress on a tough issue. there's no assurance that it results in an outcome. if we can't agree on spending cuts now, why should we suppose at the end of this process which after all has been available to us for two years the senate won't even pass a budget, why we think that this will result in real spending cuts is not clear to me. >> the other dynamic here is the mcconnell-reid proposal. that is going to get to the floor at some point. now the idea of being that the gang of six proposal is too late to be scored by cbo to really be put i
leaders are digging in on the big sticking point of taxes ahead of tomorrow's white house summit. chuck todd is nbc's chief white house correspondent and host of "the daily rundown." chuck, we've heard a lot from republicans. today at the bloomberg breakfast it was said that any tax measures had to be revenue positive over the long run that could be ten years out. eventually have to contribute toward deficit reduction. that is not what republican senator john cornyn was saying exactly the opposite what he said on our show yesterday that it has to be revenue neutral. how does the president hope to bridge this devoid? >> reporter: well, you know, they have an interesting tactic here. they believe and frankly behind the scenes so do house republicans believe it will be easier to sell a larger deal that has some things in it that nobody's crazy about on certain sides. whether some trims to entitlements on the democratic side or some of these revenue proposals on the republican side that if it's a large deal, $2.5 trillion to $4 trillion and maybe even $6 trillion in the out years meaning th
to ask the big oil companies to give up one dime not one dime of their $4 billion annual subsidy. they have refused to ask big corporations to give up one dime in their corporate loopholes. what we are negotiating with is a group of people who won't compromise. a group of people who have said we want the middle class to pay more taxes so that big corporations can pay less. we want seniors to lose their medicare so that big oil companies can continue to foost on their subdis. that's what the problem is. >> the case that republicans have taken a hard line on talks, at the same time democrats are taking what sounds like a hard line on entitlements. let me read a statement from leader pelosi that says we continue to oppose benefit cuts in social security and medicare. these pillars should not be used a as piggy bank to subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. are democrats not just as guilty of failing to compromise as republicans are in this case? >> no, absolutely not. what we have said and i think most americans would agree with this is the middle class and seniors should not be asked
as you know can happen instantly if some big player decides to sell off. >> obviously i'm not qualified to speak on behalf of the markets and what they will or will not do, but just my own judgment based upon all the various kinds of conversations that are occurring, are that we will find a way to deal with this issue. we do know that the root cause of our debt and deficit problem is spending is just too high. we also want economic growth. we don't want to embrace policies that we sincerely believe will damage the economy and hurt job creation. if you do that, then you lose even more revenues. so what we want to do is get a downpayment on our deficit and debt by getting spending cuts. i think that there are constructive conversations that are occurring both sides of the rotund rotunda, both sides of pennsylvania avenue. i do believe cooler heads will prevail. >>> what are the constructive conversations? for instance, are some elements of the gang of six proposal, i know you said it's not specific enough, it doesn't go adequately to slowing the growth of health spending, but are there co
ahead with a big deal maybe triggered in or staged later? >> i heard what the president said. i don't think business itself is bothered by the debt ceiling deal or no deal. i think what they may be bothered by is the uncertainty surrounding future tax regime that's going to be required to deal with these deficits. however, factoring into the negotiations what maybe somewhat helpful to the president in a slew of numbers that by and large are totally unhelpful is we're seeing the near term effects of cutting back in government spending. it cost jobs. not just in the government sector, but also in knock on private sector jobs as well. >> steve liesman with all the numbers and what that mean. thank you so much. good to see you, steve. republicans using the bad jobs report to scuttle any new taxes in a budget deal. joining me now virginia democratic senator mark warner a key member of the so-called gang of slight, slightly shrunk to five. still hoping senators working for months on ways to reduce the deficit. your quick reaction to the jobs report first and how it will effect the negotia
? >> what we need to do is the president proposed that we deal with this very big problem in a big way. and that democrats should put all of our sacred cows on the table. we demonstrated that we're willing to put all our sacred cows on the table. the republicans are simply not willing to do anything but sit on their hands and cross their arms like spoiled children, almost. and that's just not responsible. what democrats want to do when it comes to dealing with entitlements is make sure that we don't end medicare as we know it. that we don't cut benefits but we look at medicare and social security in a way that can preserve the long-term solvency of those programs and not propose what the republicans have to end those programs. >> speak of safety nets, the president did say in his interview last night that he could not guarantee that he would continue paying social security benefits if there were a default. this is what michele bachmann had to say about that. >> we were all shocked and appalled that president obama dangeled out in front of the cameras that senior citizens may not get th
to comment until you see some specifics. i think that the bottom line is in terms of an overall deal, the big holdup here is the fact that republicans have kept revenues off the table completely, even eric cantor yesterday, people said well, it's a great thing he says maybe he'll do a few of these egregious loopholes in the law, corporate jets and yachts and stuff like this, but even there, he had another loophole put in the law and none of the money that would be -- that comes from closing these loopholes would be used to reduce the deficit. so it's one step forward, two steps back. if republicans are willing to entertain serious revenues, there's a real chance for a big deal. if they're not, there's no chance for a big deal and i can tell you this. democrats are not going to go for something that says we have all these cuts that we'll put in the budget now and maybe we'll get revenues down the road, the ways and means committee or the finance committee will decide those down the road. leader reid issued a statement that i think sums up our view, that there has to be balance between cuts and
. there's supposedly meetings between the white house and senate and big game players later this beak. in erms the of a deal we're getting a real date, not necessarily august 2nd, but july 22nd. why? there's a ten-day period needed for the congressional budget office to score any type of compromise as well as you're going to have to sell this compromise to the members. house republicans have been steadfast they don't want any tax increases to consider any type of compromise. speaker boehner needs some time to sell that to his members. >> you're talking about political high ground. you're not talking about the substance. i want to ask you about libya. there is a procedural vote the first step on the kerry-minnesota cane resolution on libya what do you see there? >> it's around 5:30 p.m. today. it really is a procedural vote on the mccain-kerry libya resolution which says for one year the u.s. should allow -- there should be force in libya, u.s. backed force with no ground troops. to one democratic aide said they really don't know how this vote the going to come come out. there is specu
we all know the country needs which is the big deal. $4 trillion of deficit reduction to get our debt going down to put america on a stronger fiscal foundation going forward. that's really what's required. i believe it's still achievable. but we've got to change a little bit about how we talk about these things on both sides. >> you said at this point you think the president is right to threat tn veto. what if it's august 1st at midnight and approaching august 2nd, the markets are clamoring, would you still say that a short-term extension and continued talks are not the best option? >> you're a very good reporter. you pick up on nuance, don't you? >> we try. >> i don't want to bargain against my position. so i think it's critically important that the president continue to push for what we all know the country really needs. it's incumbent on both sides, on both sides to come together and do what's right for america. >> chairman conrad thank you very much. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> the big question looming over all of this and the debt talks is what will happen if a deal i
. there is -- there aren't that many big differences between the boehner plan and the reid plan other than one critical difference which is under john boehner's plan, we would be right back in this mess right at the holiday season, having this same debate, creating uncertainty in the economy at one of the most critical times for the economy, the holiday season. we don't want to do that. that's the wrong thing to do. that's not just the president's opinion. that's just not the opinion of independent financial analysts. that was actually john boehner's opinion and eric cantor's opinion just a few weeks ago when they were making the same case the president is making. >> true enough, but there is plenty of precedent for short-term debt ceiling limits being raised. aside from ruining all of our holidays, what's the damage in revisiting this six months from now? is the president really, when it comes down to it after the warning from all the big bankers, is he going to veto a short-term increase? >> there are two points. first is we are in a completely different situation now than we have ever been. there ha
a picture for us about how a newspaper like news of the world goes about reporting on such a big story? what the level of the editor, deputy editor, senior reporters would be in putting together and overseeing the story? >> i think any big story. forrer the purpose of process most stories start out with the reporter. and that reporter may be being asked by the news editor to go and investigate a story or they may have brought information about a story from their own contacts to the news editor. it is at that stage in a newspaper where the reporter and news editor discuss the voracity of the information, go out and check the allegations, and come back with a more considered view. you can imagine that every newspaper gets a lot of information to the news desk and only percentage very small percentage makes it actually to publication. there are many layers from reporter to assistant news editor to news editor. finally this story will go to the back bench which will be the people that will oversee the stopping of that story and the subwill often talk to the reporter directly with questions and a
it something big? ...or something small? ...something old? ...or something new? ...or maybe, just maybe... it's something you haven't seen yet. the 2nd generation of intel core processors. stunning visuals, intelligent performance. this is visibly smart. this is my band from the 80's, looker. hair and mascara, a lethal combo. i'm jon haber of alto music. my business is all about getting music into people's hands. and the plum card from american express open helps me do that. you name it, i can buy it. and the savings that we get from the early pay discount has given us money to reinvest back into our business and help quadruple our floor space. how can the plum card's trade terms get your business booming? booming is putting more music in more people's hands. you could save a bundle with geico's multi-policy discount. geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance. ♪ geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance. >>> with only one week to go, markets seem to be treating the august 2nd deadline as a nonevent. will it take a total failure here in washington to trigger
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)